I'm not sure what your post is supposed to mean. They just stopped using money to charge and imprison people for criminal possession and started helping people instead. It's not about more or less government, it's about the smart way to handle drugs. You obviously can't just decriminalize without putting the resources you used to waste toward rehabilitation for people who want and need it. Ignoring drug addicts isn't the answer, just like putting them in prison isn't the answer.
Just IMAGINE if we took the money spend on the war on drugs, left only as much as needed to fight drug traffickers, and used the rest to improve poor communities by having more police actually prevent and fight violent crime, burglary, etc. in those communities, and opened facilities to help people who are addicted and need it.
At this point ending the war on drugs isn't just about how much of a failure it is, it's about trying to make the world a better place.
That's nothing, i can imagine republicans willing to scale back the war on drugs and use some of resources so saved to treat the victims of drug addiction and rehabilitate those so afflicted.
This unicorn thing amuses me a lot. Every time somebody talks about something they wish would change, some of you guys just trot that out like we should just admit that things will never change. I imagine there was some hillbilly before the civil war who heard somebody say "Man, I can't wait until the day when slavery is abolished" and he's all like "LOL I LIKE UNICORNS TOO LOL."
Forget ending the war on drugs. It's just not worth it. I mean, unicorns, am I right?
the 13th amendment was pretty much unicorn farts until the civil war happened, and then it still was until Lincoln showed the north could and probably would win, so thats not the best example
so yeah if we get a civil war all kinds of things become possible
This unicorn thing amuses me a lot. Every time somebody talks about something they wish would change, some of you guys just trot that out like we should just admit that things will never change. I imagine there was some hillbilly before the civil war who heard somebody say "Man, I can't wait until the day when slavery is abolished" and he's all like "LOL I LIKE UNICORNS TOO LOL."
Forget ending the war on drugs. It's just not worth it. I mean, unicorns, am I right?
no, no, you don't get it
it's not ending the war on drugs that is a unicorn
it's a libertarian politician who supports using the funds on social services instead, and thus not actually returning any tax revenue from ending the drug war, that is a unicorn
I will leave it up to you to say whether you think decriminalization without social services has desirable outcomes
Maybe we could talk about things that many libertarians stand for that progressives might like:
libertarians dislike corporate welfare and crony capitalism
libertarians dislike the war on drugs
libertarians like relaxed immigration policies
libertarians like free speech
libertarians like personal privacy and dislike the PATRIOT ACT and the NSA
libertarians dislike interventionist wars and the military industrial complex
libertarians like school choice
libertarians like free trade and not protectionism
libertarians like gay marriage
libertarians are pro-choice
Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists or minarchists. I think most of the above stances represent most "libertarians" although I'm aware the Ron Paul wing of the republican party doesn't buy into all of it. I also realize that progressives start frothing at the mouth when I start talking about low taxes and less government spending but sometimes I feel like that more government spending and government wealth redistribution is really all that matters to them. In fact sometimes I feel like progressives/liberals could give a flying fuck about anything I listed above and will throw all of it under the bus in the name of attempted wealth equality. Or at least that's all that matters to people with a D next to their name who actually win elections.
I realize Democrats aren't necessarily progressives. I also realize this forum is well left of the democrat party and likely believes most of the above. I also believe all of the above. I guess I just place a higher priority on the above than I do wealth redistribution. When someone like Rand Paul tries to stop us from bombing syria, talks about repealing mandatory minimum sentences, filibusters about drone strikes and complains about the NSA I don't really care if he's doing it for selfish political reasons or an effort to get press. I just care that he's doing it. Because NOBODY else in the senate is.
Why would I want to be a Libertarian when I can get all of that stuff from a Liberal party but without the bizarre need to return to Gilded Age economics? You're not going to sell me a busted car just because it has a nice paint job and the headlights still work.
I also want to point out that just because the Libertarian party wouldn't make gay marriage illegal doesn't make them a gay friendly party. A Libertarian government would certainly support a business owner's right to put up "No Homo" sign. They would have no problem with us sliding right back to the "Irish Need Not Apply" days. Awesome.
The point is if you decriminalize drugs in the U.S., it's not going to reduce consumption by people who already use, but it's also probably not going to lead to a bunch of new users...
'probably' is quite thin to build this case on
eh, I'm all for decriminalization, also treatment clinics need to not be barred from doing things like using ibogain or weening someone off heroin
the war on drugs is a farce, it needs to be seen as a national health crisis and not a war (also then we can focus on what's hurting more people than illegal drugs, prescription drugs)
thing is libertarians are mostly okay with cartels and street dealers being replaced with predatory corporations which would probably be even more efficient in spreading addiction and suffering and I am not
This unicorn thing amuses me a lot. Every time somebody talks about something they wish would change, some of you guys just trot that out like we should just admit that things will never change. I imagine there was some hillbilly before the civil war who heard somebody say "Man, I can't wait until the day when slavery is abolished" and he's all like "LOL I LIKE UNICORNS TOO LOL."
Forget ending the war on drugs. It's just not worth it. I mean, unicorns, am I right?
no, no, you don't get it
it's not ending the war on drugs that is a unicorn
it's a libertarian politician who supports using the funds on social services instead, and thus not actually returning any tax revenue from ending the drug war, that is a unicorn
I will leave it up to you to say whether you think decriminalization without social services has desirable outcomes
I'd also like to point out that the Libertarian version of ending the war on drugs is to let businesses use cartoon characters to sell heroine to teenagers.
This unicorn thing amuses me a lot. Every time somebody talks about something they wish would change, some of you guys just trot that out like we should just admit that things will never change. I imagine there was some hillbilly before the civil war who heard somebody say "Man, I can't wait until the day when slavery is abolished" and he's all like "LOL I LIKE UNICORNS TOO LOL."
Forget ending the war on drugs. It's just not worth it. I mean, unicorns, am I right?
no, no, you don't get it
it's not ending the war on drugs that is a unicorn
it's a libertarian politician who supports using the funds on social services instead, and thus not actually returning any tax revenue from ending the drug war, that is a unicorn
I will leave it up to you to say whether you think decriminalization without social services has desirable outcomes
Next time please just make this post the first time? I can appreciate your actual thoughts on the matter that way. I'm not all that concerned with whether or not ending the war on drugs is going to happen. I'm fine just to speak my mind about how I hope that it does.
I think that decriminalization without adding social services would be sub-optimal, but not any worse than we are right now. Right now we have addicts needing help and people being thrown in prison for bullshit possession charges. At least then we'd just have addicts needing help.
Maybe we could talk about things that many libertarians stand for that progressives might like:
libertarians dislike corporate welfare and crony capitalism
libertarians dislike the war on drugs
libertarians like relaxed immigration policies
libertarians like free speech
libertarians like personal privacy and dislike the PATRIOT ACT and the NSA
libertarians dislike interventionist wars and the military industrial complex
libertarians like school choice
libertarians like free trade and not protectionism
libertarians like gay marriage
libertarians are pro-choice
Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists or minarchists. I think most of the above stances represent most "libertarians" although I'm aware the Ron Paul wing of the republican party doesn't buy into all of it. I also realize that progressives start frothing at the mouth when I start talking about low taxes and less government spending but sometimes I feel like that more government spending and government wealth redistribution is really all that matters to them. In fact sometimes I feel like progressives/liberals could give a flying fuck about anything I listed above and will throw all of it under the bus in the name of attempted wealth equality. Or at least that's all that matters to people with a D next to their name who actually win elections.
I realize Democrats aren't necessarily progressives. I also realize this forum is well left of the democrat party and likely believes most of the above. I also believe all of the above. I guess I just place a higher priority on the above than I do wealth redistribution. When someone like Rand Paul tries to stop us from bombing syria, talks about repealing mandatory minimum sentences, filibusters about drone strikes and complains about the NSA I don't really care if he's doing it for selfish political reasons or an effort to get press. I just care that he's doing it. Because NOBODY else in the senate is.
It'd be nice is we got Libertarians in politics who believed any of those things. Right now American Libertarians are Randian Anarcho-Capitists who have allied themselves with the religious right on social issues.
and as I said before for most of them the other issues are background noise for their ultimate goal of lowering rich people'staxes.
but libertarians are not willing to compromise with progressives to move on those issues
they are willing to compromise with cultural conservatives on other issues, though!
I observe that libertarians have infiltrated the party of low taxes and social conservatism, and not the other way around. Why do Libertarians, when they run for national office, run as Republicans and not as Democrats if they didn't prioritize economic issues over social issues?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
but libertarians are not willing to compromise with progressives to move on those issues
they are willing to compromise with cultural conservatives on other issues, though!
I observe that libertarians have infiltrated the party of low taxes and social conservatism, and not the other way around. Why do Libertarians, when they run for national office, run as Republicans and not as Democrats if they didn't prioritize economic issues over social issues?
Worse, libertarians tend to hijack social issues by making everything about them.
i.e., during OWS, they basically tried to convert the entire movement into a Ron Paul fundraising drive.
I also realize that progressives start frothing at the mouth when I start talking about low taxes and less government spending but sometimes I feel like that more government spending and government wealth redistribution is really all that matters to them. In fact sometimes I feel like progressives/liberals could give a flying fuck about anything I listed above and will throw all of it under the bus in the name of attempted wealth equality.
In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.
Your post phrases it in an extreme way, but I'll admit that for me there's a little bit of truth to it.
I will admit to growing more sanguine about social issues as I get older. Gay marriage is a good example - acceptance of homosexuality conveniently trends along generational lines. As young non-voters become middle-aged voters, and old voters die, the political window shifts more towards gay marriage. Marijuana shows a similar public opinion trend, though marijuana legalization is complicated by significant legal issues that I don't really want to get into here.
I am not nearly as confident in economic issues. The net trend for the last 40 years or so in the United States has been towards greater wealth inequality, a less progressive tax system, less financial regulation. Poverty rates have been on a roller coaster since the 1970s.
Legalizing gay marriage is great - but it's not much solace to somebody who could be fired from his at-will employment for being gay in a state where homosexuality is not a protected class. At least he gets unemployment benefits if that happens. This goes back to the old Libertarian-Liberal schism: Libertarians believe that the only threat to freedom worth legislating over comes from the government. I disagree, stridently - my life involves balancing my commitment to the (occasionally contradictory) rules set by employers, clients, landlords, and banks. These moneyed interests can curtail my freedom, and I do not gain any comfort from the knowledge that they threaten me with unemployment, homelessness, or starvation rather than guns and jail. Libertarian policies would grow poverty, erode the social safety net, erode employment and tenant protections, and thereby increase the power that threats of unemployment and homelessness have over me.
The net result would actually be less freedom for me, not more. Libertarians don't see that, either because they conveniently exclude "positive liberties" from their definition of freedom, or because they engage in some voodoo-economic trickle-down hand-waving about how their rising tide would lift my boat.
So, yes, I admit it. Economic issues - the twin protections of the welfare state and economic regulations - are an extremely high priority to me.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I also realize that progressives start frothing at the mouth when I start talking about low taxes and less government spending but sometimes I feel like that more government spending and government wealth redistribution is really all that matters to them. In fact sometimes I feel like progressives/liberals could give a flying fuck about anything I listed above and will throw all of it under the bus in the name of attempted wealth equality.
In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.
Your post phrases it in an extreme way, but I'll admit that for me there's a little bit of truth to it.
I will admit to growing more sanguine about social issues as I get older. Gay marriage is a good example - acceptance of homosexuality conveniently trends along generational lines. As young non-voters become middle-aged voters, and old voters die, the political window shifts more towards gay marriage. Marijuana shows a similar public opinion trend, though marijuana legalization is complicated by significant legal issues that I don't really want to get into here.
I am not nearly as confident in economic issues. The net trend for the last 40 years or so in the United States has been towards greater wealth inequality, a less progressive tax system, less financial regulation. Poverty rates have been on a roller coaster since the 1970s.
Legalizing gay marriage is great - but it's not much solace to somebody who could be fired from his at-will employment for being gay in a state where homosexuality is not a protected class. At least he gets unemployment benefits if that happens. This goes back to the old Libertarian-Liberal schism: Libertarians believe that the only threat to freedom worth legislating over comes from the government. I disagree, stridently - my life involves balancing my commitment to the (occasionally contradictory) rules set by employers, clients, landlords, and banks. These moneyed interests can curtail my freedom, and I do not gain any comfort from the knowledge that they threaten me with unemployment, homelessness, or starvation rather than guns and jail. Libertarian policies would grow poverty, erode the social safety net, erode employment and tenant protections, and thereby increase the power that threats of unemployment and homelessness have over me.
The net result would actually be less freedom for me, not more. Libertarians don't see that, either because they conveniently exclude "positive liberties" from their definition of freedom, or because they engage in some voodoo-economic trickle-down hand-waving about how their rising tide would lift my boat.
So, yes, I admit it. Economic issues - the twin protections of the welfare state and economic regulations - are an extremely high priority to me.
Libertarians are so afraid of being enslaved by the government that they'll strip away it's every ability to protect us from enslaving each other.
Astaereth, I think it is valid to consider that I might prioritize economic issues as high as I do largely because I am a middle-class white male.
However, I think that economic and social issues run in parallel, for the most part, not in conflict.
I recognize that, worldwide, economic development tends to precede social progress; which is why I tend to be less in favor of protectionism and a little-more marketed oriented than perhaps many other white privileged West Coast liberals. (My exposure to economists' ideas through this very forum has helped me to mature my perspective in that regard.)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
OMG guys, Cosmo magazine, pop culture, and the mainstream media brainwash women into thinking makeup and sex are okay and liberalism is the best! So how do we get them to be libertarians instead? We need to have all facets of women's lives dominated with libertarian propaganda so they'll instead be brainwashed into thinking poor people are parasites and anybody who doesn't directly support your work productivity is useless, like a good Rand disciple.
Jesus what an idiot.
She also has a video explaining how there isn't a gender wage gap because while men study engineering and technology, and do dangerous jobs, women prefer lower paying jobs such as social sciences and teaching, and like to take years off work to raise their kids. So I guess we've solved any potential glass ceiling issues there. =P
Alex Jones is not a libertarian radio host. He's an outright conspiracy nutjob. Like, claiming the government is responsible for 9/11 means you're no longer associated with anything other than your batshit conspiracy stuff.
Alex Jones is not a libertarian radio host. He's an outright conspiracy nutjob. Like, claiming the government is responsible for 9/11 means you're no longer associated with anything other than your batshit conspiracy stuff.
Then Ron Paul and Gary Johnson aren't libertarians either, since they both frequent his show.
Astaereth, I think it is valid to consider that I might prioritize economic issues as high as I do largely because I am a middle-class white male.
However, I think that economic and social issues run in parallel, for the most part, not in conflict.
I recognize that, worldwide, economic development tends to precede social progress; which is why I tend to be less in favor of protectionism and a little-more marketed oriented than perhaps many other white privileged West Coast liberals. (My exposure to economists' ideas through this very forum has helped me to mature my perspective in that regard.)
I think economic and social issues generally run parallel but they don't have to--after all, slavery was great for the Southern economy, undocumented workers are great for the agricultural industry, and bombing brown people overseas is great for the military industrial complex. Sometimes they're directly opposed on a smaller scale, too--no, you can't open up a whites only restaurant, even if there's a sizable racist niche in your town who never go out to eat for fear of meeting a black person.
In the context of the thread, though, today's party of fiscal responsibility and social progress is the same (Democratic) party, and the libertarian vote is small enough that sacrificing progressive social views in order to sway the bloc wouldn't lead to enough progress on the economic front to make up for it.
I mostly wanted to point out your first line there, and now that you're cognizant it's all good.
but libertarians are not willing to compromise with progressives to move on those issues
they are willing to compromise with cultural conservatives on other issues, though!
I observe that libertarians have infiltrated the party of low taxes and social conservatism, and not the other way around. Why do Libertarians, when they run for national office, run as Republicans and not as Democrats if they didn't prioritize economic issues over social issues?
My suspicion is they think GOP voters care more about economic issues than social issues just like democrats voters do. Or at least the GOP voters will go along with relaxed pot laws and a less interventionist foreign policy as long as the candidate support lower taxes. I don't think the reverse is true for democrats.
Granted Dem politicians are better on social issues, but frankly after watching PATRIOT act votes or the abuses with the NSA under Obama I think they also have a long way to go.
I understand the disdain for libertarian economic policies on this forum, but I still think "small l" libertarians in the GOP would be preferable to progressives over social conservatives* or neocons winning GOP primaries.
My suspicion is they think GOP voters care more about economic issues than social issues just like democrats voters do. Or at least the GOP voters will go along with relaxed pot laws and a less interventionist foreign policy as long as the candidate support lower taxes. I don't think the reverse is true for democrats.
If libertarians actually cared about legalization, they would propose national rehab programs. Until then, it's either naive wishful thinking, or empty pandering.
Granted Dem politicians are better on social issues, but frankly after watching PATRIOT act votes or the abuses with the NSA under Obama I think they also have a long way to go.
Bob Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act.
And Obama helped take the NSA from being an organization that wiretaps without warrants to an organization that wiretaps with warrants. That's a pretty important improvement.
I understand the disdain for libertarian economic policies on this forum, but I still think "small l" libertarians in the GOP would be preferable to progressives over social conservatives* or neocons winning GOP primaries.
So you're making the same "lesser of two evils" argument that libertarians claim to hate?
My suspicion is they think GOP voters care more about economic issues than social issues just like democrats voters do. Or at least the GOP voters will go along with relaxed pot laws and a less interventionist foreign policy as long as the candidate support lower taxes. I don't think the reverse is true for democrats.
If libertarians actually cared about legalization, they would propose national rehab programs. Until then, it's either naive wishful thinking, or empty pandering.
What does that have to do with legalization or decriminalization of pot? Do we have widespread national rehab programs for alcohol that falls outside standard health-care?
Granted Dem politicians are better on social issues, but frankly after watching PATRIOT act votes or the abuses with the NSA under Obama I think they also have a long way to go.
Bob Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act.
Bob Barr wasn't remotely libertarian when he did it. I'm suspicious if he's remotely libertarian now.
And Obama helped take the NSA from being an organization that wiretaps without warrants to an organization that wiretaps with warrants. That's a pretty important improvement.
Sure. I'm skeptical of the process of actually getting them.
I understand the disdain for libertarian economic policies on this forum, but I still think "small l" libertarians in the GOP would be preferable to progressives over social conservatives* or neocons winning GOP primaries.
So you're making the same "lesser of two evils" argument that libertarians claim to hate?
I'm not asking you to vote for libertarians or republicans, I'm just curious why there is such disdain for them when they appear to have more in common with progressives than other factions of the GOP. I guess it probably goes back to the economic policies, where neo-cons and so-cons tend to be more to the left than libertarians so I guess progressives find them preferable.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Its mostly because Libertarians entire policies rely on bootstrapping and ignoring the fact that the chances for opportunity are stacked against certain groups of people and entire economic classes.
They get their policies because they believe in an America that doesn't really exist, instead they think of this country as an idealized version and anyone who doesn't see it that way is a crybaby and a leach on society.
I'm not asking you to vote for libertarians or republicans, I'm just curious why there is such disdain for them when they appear to have more in common with progressives than other factions of the GOP.
They have similar beliefs only insofar as they agree people should get along and mind their own business.
Then they get in to magical rainicorn territory when it comes to how that should actually be achieved and that part is totally worthy of scorn.
My suspicion is they think GOP voters care more about economic issues than social issues just like democrats voters do. Or at least the GOP voters will go along with relaxed pot laws and a less interventionist foreign policy as long as the candidate support lower taxes. I don't think the reverse is true for democrats.
If libertarians actually cared about legalization, they would propose national rehab programs. Until then, it's either naive wishful thinking, or empty pandering.
What does that have to do with legalization or decriminalization of pot? Do we have widespread national rehab programs for alcohol that falls outside standard health-care?
Criminals generally don't break into houses to steal money for alcohol. Pot might not be a big problem, but many hard drugs are. If you can't lock the worst offenders in jail, then you need to offer some sort of plan on what to do with them, if you want any shot of actually ending the war on drugs. Otherwise, it's not a serious proposal, and the reason no one supports you is because your entire platform is a joke.
Granted Dem politicians are better on social issues, but frankly after watching PATRIOT act votes or the abuses with the NSA under Obama I think they also have a long way to go.
Bob Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act.
Bob Barr wasn't remotely libertarian when he did it. I'm suspicious if he's remotely libertarian now.
So the 2008 libertarian candidate was not a true libertarian.
And Obama helped take the NSA from being an organization that wiretaps without warrants to an organization that wiretaps with warrants. That's a pretty important improvement.
Sure. I'm skeptical of the process of actually getting them.
And there's no way to resolve that skepticism short of ending the NSA. Which is never going to happen.
I understand the disdain for libertarian economic policies on this forum, but I still think "small l" libertarians in the GOP would be preferable to progressives over social conservatives* or neocons winning GOP primaries.
So you're making the same "lesser of two evils" argument that libertarians claim to hate?
I'm not asking you to vote for libertarians or republicans, I'm just curious why there is such disdain for them when they appear to have more in common with progressives than other factions of the GOP. I guess it probably goes back to the economic policies, where neo-cons and so-cons tend to be more to the left than libertarians so I guess progressives find them preferable.
Probably because we don't get any Santorum supporters on this board asking us to vote Santorum. Also, because Santorum people typically don't spam the internet at large.
There's such disdain for libertarians because
1) they want us to try some horrible freaking economic policies that have already been shown to not work so well.
2) they really totally for real believe in being socially liberal but they just accidentally happen to caucus with and run as Republicans when on a national stage.
So a good deal of people end up feeling like maybe the libertarians don't give a shit about anything other than "it's my fucking money and you're stealing it from me and I'll be goddamned if you're going to pass it out like candy to the moochers."
I mean, there's more and we could probably go deeper into those, but I think that's a decent quick-n-dirty version.
Granted Dem politicians are better on social issues, but frankly after watching PATRIOT act votes or the abuses with the NSA under Obama I think they also have a long way to go.
Oh, I totally agree. I am not happy in the slightest about the NSA.
I understand the disdain for libertarian economic policies on this forum, but I still think "small l" libertarians in the GOP would be preferable to progressives over social conservatives* or neocons winning GOP primaries.
Sure. I would rather have a Gary Johnson over a Rick Santorum.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
How many democrats have been nominated on a national Libertarian ticket?
Because there are an awful lot of republicans.
The problem is that the entire libertarian movement decided to shift towards paleo libertarianism in the 80s and 90s in order to win the Reagan voters. That meant distancing themselves as much from the left as possible, both socially and economically.
But now the republicans have been completely rejected on the National level. So now the libertarians are pretending to be super liberal to capitalize by promoting themselves as progressives.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Also, a lot of libertarians I've talked to seem to deny that the 1800's was a goddamned hellhole in this country when it came to quality of life and income inequality.
The fact that they want to return us to those same fiscal policies despite the mountain of evidence that they don't work is my main sticking point with the libertarian party.
Posts
Just IMAGINE if we took the money spend on the war on drugs, left only as much as needed to fight drug traffickers, and used the rest to improve poor communities by having more police actually prevent and fight violent crime, burglary, etc. in those communities, and opened facilities to help people who are addicted and need it.
At this point ending the war on drugs isn't just about how much of a failure it is, it's about trying to make the world a better place.
That's nothing, i can imagine republicans willing to scale back the war on drugs and use some of resources so saved to treat the victims of drug addiction and rehabilitate those so afflicted.
Forget ending the war on drugs. It's just not worth it. I mean, unicorns, am I right?
so yeah if we get a civil war all kinds of things become possible
no, no, you don't get it
it's not ending the war on drugs that is a unicorn
it's a libertarian politician who supports using the funds on social services instead, and thus not actually returning any tax revenue from ending the drug war, that is a unicorn
I will leave it up to you to say whether you think decriminalization without social services has desirable outcomes
Why would I want to be a Libertarian when I can get all of that stuff from a Liberal party but without the bizarre need to return to Gilded Age economics? You're not going to sell me a busted car just because it has a nice paint job and the headlights still work.
I also want to point out that just because the Libertarian party wouldn't make gay marriage illegal doesn't make them a gay friendly party. A Libertarian government would certainly support a business owner's right to put up "No Homo" sign. They would have no problem with us sliding right back to the "Irish Need Not Apply" days. Awesome.
eh, I'm all for decriminalization, also treatment clinics need to not be barred from doing things like using ibogain or weening someone off heroin
the war on drugs is a farce, it needs to be seen as a national health crisis and not a war (also then we can focus on what's hurting more people than illegal drugs, prescription drugs)
thing is libertarians are mostly okay with cartels and street dealers being replaced with predatory corporations which would probably be even more efficient in spreading addiction and suffering and I am not
I'd also like to point out that the Libertarian version of ending the war on drugs is to let businesses use cartoon characters to sell heroine to teenagers.
Next time please just make this post the first time? I can appreciate your actual thoughts on the matter that way. I'm not all that concerned with whether or not ending the war on drugs is going to happen. I'm fine just to speak my mind about how I hope that it does.
I think that decriminalization without adding social services would be sub-optimal, but not any worse than we are right now. Right now we have addicts needing help and people being thrown in prison for bullshit possession charges. At least then we'd just have addicts needing help.
It'd be nice is we got Libertarians in politics who believed any of those things. Right now American Libertarians are Randian Anarcho-Capitists who have allied themselves with the religious right on social issues.
and as I said before for most of them the other issues are background noise for their ultimate goal of lowering rich people'staxes.
I observe that libertarians have infiltrated the party of low taxes and social conservatism, and not the other way around. Why do Libertarians, when they run for national office, run as Republicans and not as Democrats if they didn't prioritize economic issues over social issues?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Worse, libertarians tend to hijack social issues by making everything about them.
i.e., during OWS, they basically tried to convert the entire movement into a Ron Paul fundraising drive.
http://www.salon.com/2002/06/14/barr_2/
This was the 2008 libertarian candidate for president.
The problem with libertarians is that even if you agree with them on certain issues, you can't trust them to actually follow through on their beliefs.
Your post phrases it in an extreme way, but I'll admit that for me there's a little bit of truth to it.
I will admit to growing more sanguine about social issues as I get older. Gay marriage is a good example - acceptance of homosexuality conveniently trends along generational lines. As young non-voters become middle-aged voters, and old voters die, the political window shifts more towards gay marriage. Marijuana shows a similar public opinion trend, though marijuana legalization is complicated by significant legal issues that I don't really want to get into here.
I am not nearly as confident in economic issues. The net trend for the last 40 years or so in the United States has been towards greater wealth inequality, a less progressive tax system, less financial regulation. Poverty rates have been on a roller coaster since the 1970s.
Legalizing gay marriage is great - but it's not much solace to somebody who could be fired from his at-will employment for being gay in a state where homosexuality is not a protected class. At least he gets unemployment benefits if that happens. This goes back to the old Libertarian-Liberal schism: Libertarians believe that the only threat to freedom worth legislating over comes from the government. I disagree, stridently - my life involves balancing my commitment to the (occasionally contradictory) rules set by employers, clients, landlords, and banks. These moneyed interests can curtail my freedom, and I do not gain any comfort from the knowledge that they threaten me with unemployment, homelessness, or starvation rather than guns and jail. Libertarian policies would grow poverty, erode the social safety net, erode employment and tenant protections, and thereby increase the power that threats of unemployment and homelessness have over me.
The net result would actually be less freedom for me, not more. Libertarians don't see that, either because they conveniently exclude "positive liberties" from their definition of freedom, or because they engage in some voodoo-economic trickle-down hand-waving about how their rising tide would lift my boat.
So, yes, I admit it. Economic issues - the twin protections of the welfare state and economic regulations - are an extremely high priority to me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Libertarians are so afraid of being enslaved by the government that they'll strip away it's every ability to protect us from enslaving each other.
That's cause they aren't really that concerned about that second part.
Obviously. I, for one, intend to be a captain of industry in the new utopia.
I agree with that to some extent; but I also think it's easier to make that call when you're not part of the affected minority.
Let me be clear that I absolutely do not think we need to sacrifice racial, sexual, or gender equality on an altar to get progressive economic policy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Libertarians adding a single line to their website saying "We support gay marriage" doesn't have any meaningful effect on minorities.
I see libertarians leading the charge for tax cuts on the wealthy. I do not see them leading the charge on minority rights.
This comes back to my point about how much ink the NSA got opposed to how much the NYPD Demographics Unit did.
However, I think that economic and social issues run in parallel, for the most part, not in conflict.
I recognize that, worldwide, economic development tends to precede social progress; which is why I tend to be less in favor of protectionism and a little-more marketed oriented than perhaps many other white privileged West Coast liberals. (My exposure to economists' ideas through this very forum has helped me to mature my perspective in that regard.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Basically, "women are too stupid to understand libertarians, and liberals are evil because they teach that sex is enjoyable and stuff."
Also, why is her tongue so blue? Too much colloidal silver?
The rest of me just wants to post this video of a prominent libertarian talk show host, because it's beautiful and I can't stop watching it.
Jesus what an idiot.
She also has a video explaining how there isn't a gender wage gap because while men study engineering and technology, and do dangerous jobs, women prefer lower paying jobs such as social sciences and teaching, and like to take years off work to raise their kids. So I guess we've solved any potential glass ceiling issues there. =P
Alex Jones is not a libertarian radio host. He's an outright conspiracy nutjob. Like, claiming the government is responsible for 9/11 means you're no longer associated with anything other than your batshit conspiracy stuff.
Then Ron Paul and Gary Johnson aren't libertarians either, since they both frequent his show.
Here's Ron Paul being asked about 9/11.
I think economic and social issues generally run parallel but they don't have to--after all, slavery was great for the Southern economy, undocumented workers are great for the agricultural industry, and bombing brown people overseas is great for the military industrial complex. Sometimes they're directly opposed on a smaller scale, too--no, you can't open up a whites only restaurant, even if there's a sizable racist niche in your town who never go out to eat for fear of meeting a black person.
In the context of the thread, though, today's party of fiscal responsibility and social progress is the same (Democratic) party, and the libertarian vote is small enough that sacrificing progressive social views in order to sway the bloc wouldn't lead to enough progress on the economic front to make up for it.
I mostly wanted to point out your first line there, and now that you're cognizant it's all good.
My suspicion is they think GOP voters care more about economic issues than social issues just like democrats voters do. Or at least the GOP voters will go along with relaxed pot laws and a less interventionist foreign policy as long as the candidate support lower taxes. I don't think the reverse is true for democrats.
Granted Dem politicians are better on social issues, but frankly after watching PATRIOT act votes or the abuses with the NSA under Obama I think they also have a long way to go.
I understand the disdain for libertarian economic policies on this forum, but I still think "small l" libertarians in the GOP would be preferable to progressives over social conservatives* or neocons winning GOP primaries.
*Of the Rick Santorum variety
If libertarians actually cared about legalization, they would propose national rehab programs. Until then, it's either naive wishful thinking, or empty pandering.
Bob Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act.
And Obama helped take the NSA from being an organization that wiretaps without warrants to an organization that wiretaps with warrants. That's a pretty important improvement.
So you're making the same "lesser of two evils" argument that libertarians claim to hate?
What does that have to do with legalization or decriminalization of pot? Do we have widespread national rehab programs for alcohol that falls outside standard health-care?
Bob Barr wasn't remotely libertarian when he did it. I'm suspicious if he's remotely libertarian now.
Sure. I'm skeptical of the process of actually getting them.
I'm not asking you to vote for libertarians or republicans, I'm just curious why there is such disdain for them when they appear to have more in common with progressives than other factions of the GOP. I guess it probably goes back to the economic policies, where neo-cons and so-cons tend to be more to the left than libertarians so I guess progressives find them preferable.
They get their policies because they believe in an America that doesn't really exist, instead they think of this country as an idealized version and anyone who doesn't see it that way is a crybaby and a leach on society.
They have similar beliefs only insofar as they agree people should get along and mind their own business.
Then they get in to magical rainicorn territory when it comes to how that should actually be achieved and that part is totally worthy of scorn.
Criminals generally don't break into houses to steal money for alcohol. Pot might not be a big problem, but many hard drugs are. If you can't lock the worst offenders in jail, then you need to offer some sort of plan on what to do with them, if you want any shot of actually ending the war on drugs. Otherwise, it's not a serious proposal, and the reason no one supports you is because your entire platform is a joke.
So the 2008 libertarian candidate was not a true libertarian.
And there's no way to resolve that skepticism short of ending the NSA. Which is never going to happen.
Probably because we don't get any Santorum supporters on this board asking us to vote Santorum. Also, because Santorum people typically don't spam the internet at large.
1) they want us to try some horrible freaking economic policies that have already been shown to not work so well.
2) they really totally for real believe in being socially liberal but they just accidentally happen to caucus with and run as Republicans when on a national stage.
So a good deal of people end up feeling like maybe the libertarians don't give a shit about anything other than "it's my fucking money and you're stealing it from me and I'll be goddamned if you're going to pass it out like candy to the moochers."
I mean, there's more and we could probably go deeper into those, but I think that's a decent quick-n-dirty version.
Oh, I totally agree. I am not happy in the slightest about the NSA.
Sure. I would rather have a Gary Johnson over a Rick Santorum.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Because there are an awful lot of republicans.
The problem is that the entire libertarian movement decided to shift towards paleo libertarianism in the 80s and 90s in order to win the Reagan voters. That meant distancing themselves as much from the left as possible, both socially and economically.
But now the republicans have been completely rejected on the National level. So now the libertarians are pretending to be super liberal to capitalize by promoting themselves as progressives.
The fact that they want to return us to those same fiscal policies despite the mountain of evidence that they don't work is my main sticking point with the libertarian party.